Note: More
than 12,900 persons are eligible to practice law in
Oregon. Some of them share the same name or similar
names. All discipline reports should be read carefully
for names, addresses and bar numbers.

Note: More than 13,000 persons are eligible
to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share the same
name or similar names. All discipline reports should
be read carefully for names, addresses and bar numbers.

CRAIG C.
COYNER
OSB #74068
Bend
3-month suspension

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Oregon Supreme
Court issued an opinion suspending Bend lawyer Craig
C. Coyner for three months, effective Feb. 12, 2007,
for violating DR 1-102(A)(4) (engage in conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice), DR 1-103(C) (failure
to cooperate in bar investigation), DR 6-101(B) (neglect
of a legal matter), DR 7-106(A) (disregard a court
order or ruling), DR 9-101(A) (failure to deposit client
funds in trust) and DR 9-101(C)(3) (failure to provide
appropriate accounting to a client) in three matters.
In addition, Coyner will have to apply for formal reinstatement,
as provided by Bar Rule 8.1.

In one matter, Coyner undertook to represent
a client in an appeal. For nearly one year Coyner did
not communicate with his client and took no action
with respect to her appeal. During that year, the court
of appeals dismissed the appeal because Coyner failed
to file a brief on his client’s behalf. Coyner
failed to inform his client about the dismissal. Coyner
also failed to respond to a show cause order and other
inquiries by the court of appeals.

In a second matter, Coyner undertook
to represent a client in a proceeding the client had
initiated to modify his child support obligation. The
client provided Coyner with certain discovery requested
by the opposing lawyer, but Coyner failed to produce
that discovery to the opposing lawyer. The opposing
lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings. Coyner
failed to respond to the motion and failed to inform
his client that it had been filed. The court granted
the dismissal and ordered Coyner’s client to
pay attorney fees incurred by the opposing side. Coyner
failed to inform his client about the court’s
decision or about the monetary judgment that had been
taken against him. In the matter, Coyner prematurely
withdrew client funds from his trust account, and failed
to respond to his client’s requests for a written
accounting. Coyner also failed to provide certain information
requested by the bar.

In a third matter, Coyner was conditionally
released on pending criminal charges. One condition
of the court-ordered release prohibited him from consuming
alcohol. On two occasions, Coyner violated that condition.
In that matter, Coyner also failed to respond to the
bar’s inquiries about his conduct.

The supreme court concluded that a three-month
suspension coupled with the requirement that Coyner
go through the formal reinstatement process would adequately
protect the public and give Coyner a reasonable opportunity
to show that he has overcome his alcohol dependency
and is fit to practice law.

CHERYL B.
CHADWICK
OSB #00228
Clayton, Idaho
Form B resignation

Effective Feb. 21, 2007, the Oregon
Supreme Court accepted the Form B resignation of former
Portland and Wilsonville attorney, Cheryl Chadwick.
At the time of the resignation, a formal disciplinary
proceeding was pending against Chadwick following her
criminal conviction in federal court for money laundering.
The disciplinary complaint alleged violations of: DR
1-102(A)(2) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely
on fitness to practice law); DR 1-102(A)(3) (conduct
involving fraud or dishonesty); DR 7-102(A)(7) (counseling
or assisting a client in illegal or fraudulent conduct);
DR 7-102(A)(8) (knowingly engaging in illegal conduct)
and ORS 9.527(2) (felony conviction).

The formal proceeding also dealt with
a separate client matter related to Chadwick’s
representation of a criminal defendant and alleged
violations of: DR 2-106(A) (charging or collecting
an illegal or clearly excessive fee); DR 2-110(A)(3)
(withdrawing without taking reasonable steps to protect
client interests); DR 9-101(A) (failing to deposit
or maintain client funds in trust) and DR 9-101(C)(3)
(failing to account for client funds or property).

Chadwick was admitted to practice in
2000. In her resignation, she stated that her client
files were delivered to Lynne Morgan in Portland.

Between October 2002 and October 2004,
Hughes undertook to represent insurance companies in
four subrogation matters. In all four matters, Hughes
periodically performed some work but failed to take
constructive action to advance the matters, failed
to maintain adequate communications with his clients’ representative
and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests
for information from his clients’ representative.

BENJAMIN
M. KARLIN
OSB #82296
Milwaukie
Public reprimand

Effective Feb. 26, 2007, the disciplinary
board approved a stipulation for discipline publicly
reprimanding Milwaukie attorney Benjamin Karlin for
violations of RPC 1.3 (neglect of a legal matter),
RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed
about the status of a matter) and RPC 1.4(b) (failure
to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary
to permit the client to make informed decisions).

The charges arose in connection with
Karlin’s representation of two separate clients.
In the first matter, Karlin was retained to file and
represent a client in a divorce. Although he timely
prepared and filed a petition for dissolution of marriage,
thereafter he did not arrange for service of the petition
on his client’s wife within a reasonable time
or take any substantive action in the case prior to
being terminated by his client a number of months later.

In a second matter, Karlin was hired
to attempt to eliminate a spousal support obligation.
Karlin reviewed the matter and prepared a motion and
affidavit for a modification of spousal support. However,
the motion was never filed with the court. Karlin had
used up the retainer the client had paid, but did not
inform the client of this or request any additional
funds. Thereafter, Karlin took no action on the case
and did not provide substantive responses to his client’s
inquiries. Karlin never explained to his client that
he had more pressing matters or that there was any
reason that the modification of support could not go
forward.

Karlin’s conduct was aggravated
in part by his substantial experience in the practice
of law, having been admitted in 1982. However, the
stipulation recited among those factors in mitigation,
Karlin’s absence of prior discipline, absence
of a dishonest or selfish motive and cooperation with
the bar.

CLAYTON J.
LANCE
OSB #85264
St. Helens
6-month suspension

Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline
approved by the disciplinary board on March 2, 2007,
St. Helens lawyer Clayton J. Lance was suspended from
the practice of law for six-months, effective April
1, 2007, for violation of DR 6-101(A) (lack of competence),
DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal matter), RPC 1.15-1(d)
(failure to promptly deliver client property) and RPC
8.1(a)(2) (failure to respond to the bar).

The charges arose out of two client matters.
In the first client matter, Lance was appointed to
represent a client who had been charged in state court
with multiple counts of sexual crimes against minors
or young men. The client had also been indicted in
federal court on three counts of related crimes.

The evidence against Lance’s client
was overwhelming, and it was in the client’s
best interest to negotiate an agreement that would
reduce the length of the client’s incarceration.
Nonetheless, Lance did not communicate with his client,
respond to the client’s attempts to communicate
with him or apply for funds to pay an investigator
for several months. The client lost confidence in Lance
during this period. Once Lance began to communicate
with his client, he failed to take any steps to regain
the client’s confidence or explore or discuss
with the client his options and their consequences.
Lance failed to take steps to assist his client to
make an informed decision about the merits of the case
or his legal options. Lance also failed adequately
to prepare for trial in that he failed to prepare his
client to testify and failed to subpoena lay and expert
witnesses.

In a second matter, Lance had represented
a client in a criminal matter. At the conclusion of
the representation, the client retained new counsel
to represent him in a post-conviction relief proceeding.
Both the client and his new counsel requested that
Lance return the client’s file. Lance failed
to do so, despite several requests. Thereafter, Lance
failed to respond to inquiries by disciplinary counsel’s
office.

In arriving at the sanction, the stipulation
recited Lance’s substantial experience in the
practice of law, his prior disciplinary record, that
he had engaged in a pattern of misconduct that involved
multiple offenses and that the victims of his conduct
were vulnerable because each was incarcerated at the
time of the conduct. In mitigation, the stipulation
recited that at the time of the conduct, Lance was
experiencing fatigue, nausea, dizziness and severe
headaches, which, according to later diagnosis, were
caused by coronary artery disease.